[sunnykerr]

Well, I'm certainly someone who opposes the death penalty.

Even for terrorists. Even for the surviving Tsarnaev brother.

This is one of those cases when I don't believing putting him to death would accomplish anything.

It wouldn't be justice, for one thing.

The families he's affected will suffer forever, why should his pain end so quickly?

Plus, since martyrdom seems to be part of that terrorist ethos, wouldn't it be what he wants?

I'm not sure I can be on board with giving this kid anything he wants.

[Logan]

Very true , he sits in a military facility no
Visitors allowed except his lawyer. Few relatives tried to come from Russia but only allowed after intense scrutiny. No window ..

Perhaps that is what he wants to be a martyr.. Even as recent as a few weeks ago , US was over in Russia , one stop was to the area his brother trained lived to get even more background ..

Add in 2 college roommates friends of Surnih may go to jail for a few yrs after they had disposed of stuff of his , from the college dorm room had to do with the bombing..

[sunnykerr]

Who is "Surnih?" Was he the older brother?

I had thought the older moved around a lot when he went back to Russia with his wife in 2012. I didn't realized he'd trained in one specific area. Do you know which one?

There is something really sad about a young man throwing his life away like that, and I mean the younger brother here.

Don't get me wrong, he did the crime, and I don't feel bad knowing he's in solitary confinement and will likely be for the rest of his life.

It's just that he is just a kid, for all of the evil crimes he's committed.

I can feel the waste of his life even if I think he deserves to be in jail for the rest of his days.

[sunnykerr]

Some U.S. states consider returning to old-fashioned executions ST. LOUIS -- With lethal-injection drugs in short supply and new questions looming about their effectiveness, lawmakers in some death penalty states are considering bringing back relics of a more gruesome past: firing squads, electrocutions and gas chambers. Most states abandoned those execution methods more than a generation ago in a bid to make capital punishment more palatable to the public and to a judicial system worried about inflicting cruel and unusual punishments that violate the Constitution. But to some elected officials, the drug shortages and recent legal challenges are beginning to make lethal injection seem too vulnerable to complications. "This isn't an attempt to time-warp back into the 1850s or the wild, wild West or anything like that," said Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin, who this month proposed making firing squads an option for executions. "It's just that I foresee a problem, and I'm trying to come up with a solution that will be the most humane yet most economical for our state." Brattin, a Republican, said questions about the injection drugs are sure to end up in court, delaying executions and forcing states to examine alternatives. It's not fair, he said, for relatives of murder victims to wait years, even decades, to see justice served while lawmakers and judges debate execution methods. Like Brattin, a Wyoming lawmaker this month offered a bill allowing the firing squad. Missouri's attorney general and a state lawmaker have raised the notion of rebuilding the state's gas chamber. And a Virginia lawmaker wants to make electrocution an option if lethal-injection drugs aren't available. If adopted, those measures could return states to the more harrowing imagery of previous decades, when inmates were hanged, electrocuted or shot to death by marksmen. States began moving to lethal injection in the 1980s in the belief that powerful sedatives and heart-stopping drugs would replace the violent spectacles with a more clinical affair while limiting, if not eliminating, an inmate's pain. The total number of U.S. executions has declined in recent years -- from a peak of 98 in 1999 to 39 last year. Some states have turned away from the death penalty entirely. Many have cases tied up in court. And those that carry on with executions find them increasingly difficult to conduct because of the scarcity of drugs and doubts about how well they work. In recent years, European drug makers have stopped selling the lethal chemicals to prisons because they do not want their products used to kill. At least two recent executions are also raising concerns about the drugs' effectiveness. Last week, Ohio inmate Dennis McGuire took 26 minutes to die by injection, gasping repeatedly as he lay on a gurney with his mouth opening and closing. And on Jan. 9, Oklahoma inmate Michael Lee Wilson's final words were, "I feel my whole body burning." Missouri threw out its three-drug lethal injection procedure after it could no longer obtain the drugs. State officials altered the method in 2012 to use propofol, which was found in the system of pop star Michael Jackson after he died of an overdose in 2009. The anti-death penalty European Union threatened to impose export limits on propofol if it were used in an execution, jeopardizing the supply of a common anesthetic needed by hospitals across the nation. In October, Gov. Jay Nixon stayed the execution of serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin and ordered the Missouri Department of Corrections to find a new drug. Days later, the state announced it had switched to a form of pentobarbital made by a compounding pharmacy. Like other states, Missouri has refused to divulge where the drug comes from or who makes it. Missouri has carried out two executions using pentobarbital -- Franklin in November and Allen Nicklasson in December. Neither inmate showed outward signs of suffering, but the secrecy of the process resulted in a lawsuit and a legislative inquiry. Michael Campbell, assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, said some lawmakers simply don't believe convicted murderers deserve any mercy. "Many of these politicians are trying to tap into a more populist theme that those who do terrible things deserve to have terrible things happen to them," Campbell said. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., cautioned that there could be a backlash. "These ideas would jeopardize the death penalty because, I think, the public reaction would be revulsion, at least from many quarters," Dieter said. Some states already provide alternatives to lethal injection. Condemned prisoners may choose the electric chair in eight states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. An inmate named Robert Gleason Jr. was the most recent to die by electrocution, in Virginia in January 2013. Arizona, Missouri and Wyoming allow for gas-chamber executions. Missouri no longer has a gas chamber, but Attorney General Chris Koster, a Democrat, and Missouri state Sen. Kurt Schaefer, a Republican, last year suggested possibility rebuilding one. So far, there is no bill to do so. Delaware, New Hampshire and Washington state still allow inmates to choose hanging. The last hanging in the U.S. was Billy Bailey in Delaware in 1996. Two prisoners in Washington state have chosen to be hanged since the 1990s -- Westley Allan Dodd in 1993 and Charles Rodman Campbell in 1994. Firing squads typically consisting of five sharpshooters with rifles, one of which is loaded with a blank so the shooters do not know for sure who fired the fatal bullet. They have been used mostly for military executions. Since the end of the Civil War in the 1860s, there have been three civilian firing squad executions in the U.S., all in Utah. Gary Gilmore uttered his famous final words, "Let's do it" on Jan. 17, 1977, before his execution, which ended what amounted to a 10-year national moratorium on the death penalty.

Let them go back to the barbaric methods of old.

That's how the death penalty was banned in the U.S. in the first place.

When it's this hard to put someone to death, perhaps it should be seen as a big ole sign that it shouldn't be done.

[Logan]

Feds will seek death penalty for Tsarnaev | Metro News - WCVB Home

Feds will seek death penalty for Tsarnaev Bombing killed 3, wounded more than 260 UPDATED 2:32 PM EST Jan 30, 2014 BOSTON —The federal government will seek the death penalty against accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Attorney General Eric Holder announced. Three people were killed and more than 170 injured in two bombings that rocked the Boston Marathon. Federal documents breakdown how the Boston Bombing suspects reportedly carried out the attack, and shows how close friends attempted to hide evidence from investigators. Investigators claim Tsarnaev, 20, and his brother, Tamerlan, 26, built pressure cooker bombs and placed them near the Marathon finish line. Tamerlan died in a shootout with police in Watertown several days after the bombings. Images: Death penalty in Mass. Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty to a 30-count federal indictment that includes charges of using a weapon of mass destruction. Seventeen of the charges carry a possible penalty of death. "We will do everything that we can to pursue justice," Boston U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz pledged after the indictment was handed up. Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984, but Tsarnaev will be prosecuted in federal court. Since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988, only three people, including Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, have been executed. A jury of Massachusetts residents will decide his guilt, and ultimately, his fate. The jury must be unanimous in their decision to impose the death penalty. Two widely publicized domestic terrorism cases -- the Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph and Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski -- ended when defense attorney Judy Clarke negotiated plea agreements.

[quaist]

^ I'm not that familiar with the US judicial system, so on federal level, would there be anyone eligible to pardon him in case the jury decided he's guilty?

"It's just that I foresee a problem, and I'm trying to come up with a solution that will be the most humane yet most economical for our state."

How ironic... for all I know, doing away with the death penalty altogether would perfectly do the trick, both where humanity and the economy are concerned.

[GardenSirens]

Oh my god, i forgot about the boston bomber. I honestly don' tthink the death penalty is appropriate for that. There are people who killed more people in worse ways with less penalties. Plus, I'm pretty sure his brother was more of a mastermind than him. Rolling Stone did a great article going in depth with his (tsarnerov, spelling?) life as a promising student and good friend, etc...

[sunnykerr]

Well, they executed Timothy McVeigh (of course, that's what he wanted), so I don't see why they wouldn't exectute this one as well.

I do find it appalling that any government would pursue the death penalty as a form of punishment, but this is the world we live in, right?

It's really disappointing.

And I, too, believe that the older brother was probably the chief architect of this whole exercise. He's the one who got "radicalized." He's the one who had issues with the U.S. government. And it's certainly easy enough to imagine a younger brother being manipulated and swayed by his older brother.

However, the younger brother was still invovled. He still did the crime.

So, at the end of the day, he needs to be held accountable for his role in this attack.

[GardenSirens]

Oh you're totally right. It's just like someone saying "They didn't mean to kill someone" or "it was an accident". Bottom line: it happened. I just don't feel this kid will get a fair trial. Lots of emotions running high...and I understand. Seeing that little boy die got me so upset (the others did too but when a kid or animal die it's just extra heartbreaking).

[sunnykerr]

It's the judge's role to ensure he gets a fair trial.

So, hopefully, people can find a way to rise against their emotions.

Problem is, there is no doubt about his guilt.

There may be mitigating factors, but he was still directly involved in a domestic terrorist attack.

That's not small potatoes.

[GardenSirens]

I'm very picky on semantics (I am a writer, afterall) and I don't consider what he did as terrorism. I know boiled down, it's the invocation of terror on the masses; but terrorism serves an extremist agenda, otherrwise it's just mass murder. From my best understand, despite him being a Muslim and being brainwashed....I still don't see it as terrorism. Especially because like 3 people died. I'll pay close attention to the court but I fear media propaganda has blinded everyone with this.

[quaist]

Originally Posted by placebobsh (View Post) I'm very picky on semantics (I am a writer, afterall) and I don't consider what he did as terrorism. I know boiled down, it's the invocation of terror on the masses; but terrorism serves an extremist agenda, otherrwise it's just mass murder. From my best understand, despite him being a Muslim and being brainwashed....I still don't see it as terrorism. Especially because like 3 people died. I'll pay close attention to the court but I fear media propaganda has blinded everyone with this.

Why exactly wouldn't you file the Boston attack under terrorism, though? They certainly didn't plan on 'only' killing three people. And didn't they have an extremist agenda?

[Logan]

Agree how can you not see it was terrorism ? 2 brothers with pressure cookers fixed up with explosives left in a crowd of people watching a televised national event . leaving the 2 bombs that also was filled with shrapnel that included bits of metal, nails, and bearing balls.

The aftermath was 3 killed 264 injured 14 required amputaion ..

They ended up in firefight with police 3 days later almost killing one police officer . The brother that had died in the shootout already killed a MIT police officer because they thought he requinized them .

The investiagation showed they had planned to go to Times square let off a simmiler type bomb .

So not sure where 2 men , loading up pressure cookers with shrapnel at a public event with thousands of people is not terrorism ??

[GardenSirens]

Because that's just it, it was 2 people. Terrorism acts involve groups, well planned out and a network of people to make it possible: not a trip to wal mart and 20 minutes to make crude bombs. Any one of us could do that and based on our religion it would be called murder or terrorism. I'm white so if I did something like that, no one would call terrorism. It's a semantics game here in America...we don't look at facts, our media judges by skin color. Just like when blacks kill white it's thug crime but when whites kill blacks it's a hate crime.

If you wanna get technical, it's domestic terrorism. I don't like using the T word, though.

[sunnykerr]

I agree that the world's media (not just in the U.S.) tends to jump to conclusions very quickly.

But, yeah, I don't think the Tsarnaevs needed a huge organization behind them to be called terrorists.

I know people who were there that day. Even if you dismiss the death toll as minor and somehow disregard the number of injured people, the brothers did succeed in inflicting mass panic and terror.

At any rate, the subject of this thread is the death penalty and not terrorism. We actually have another thread devoted to that.

So I'll just say that I don't agree with giving the surviving brother the death penalty.

In my estimation, he should rot in jail for the rest of his natural life.